Critical Response 2

Garg 1 Rishi Garg English 10, 1st Period Mr. Fox 29 May 2008

Critical Response 2

This critical response will focus on two pieces of literary criticism: one from “The Rejection of Falstaff”, written by A. C. Bradley, and another from “Falstaff in 1 Henry IV: What’s in a Name?”, written by Robert F. Willson. In his criticism of Henry IV, Part One, Bradley states that Falstaff is not a coward, and provides evidence to substantiate his claim. In the second criticism, Willson shows how Falstaff’s name is symbolic of the character’s cowardice and gluttony. Clearly, these two pieces of criticism are opposing in claims and theories. It would be valuable to analyze each author’s theories and discern which claims are agreeably justified. In the first criticism, Bradley maintains that Falstaff is not a coward. He begins by defining the word coward: “a person who feels painful fear in the presence of danger, and yields to that fear in spite of his better feelings and convictions”. This is a satisfactory definition, and one that the general population would probably agree with. Bradley says that if we believe in that definition, Falstaff cannot be a coward. His first piece of evidence involves Falstaff’s role as commander of one of King Henry’s regiments. It is agreeable to say that if Falstaff was truly a coward, he would have stayed behind and sent his troops into battle by themselves. During the battle, Falstaff says: “I have led my ragamuffins where they are peppered” (5.3.3839). This shows that Falstaff, instead of staying behind, actually led his troops into battle. Bradley’s second piece of evidence is from Act 2, Scene 4,

Garg 2 where Falstaff is hiding from a sheriff in the pub. Bradley says that the fact that Falstaff fell asleep instead of quaking in fear shows his non-cowardice. This is a very good point, because if Falstaff was truly a coward, he probably would have at least stayed awake, if not shaken in fear. In the second criticism, Willson argues that Falstaff’s name was dubbed carefully by Shakespeare in order to show the character’s cowardice and gluttony. His first piece of evidence is the thought that Falstaff’s name sounds like “fallen staff”. Willson says this is fitting because Falstaff is often dropping his weapon and running away from acts of discretion. For example, just after Falstaff is robbed by Hal and Poins, the prince says: “the thieves are all scattered” (2.2.110), indicating that Falstaff ran away. Here, Willson’s theory seems sound. His second piece of evidence lies in the belief that the second syllable of Falstaff’s name means “staple” or “staff of life”, or simply food. Willson states that this highlights Falstaff’s gluttony and lust for alcohol. This is yet another reasonable claim. Willson’s theories are extremely simple, and don’t have any objectionable parts. Although both of the authors’ theories seem believable, each of the authors wrote about opposite beliefs. Both authors’ theories are right, but on different levels. Bradley’s claim that Falstaff is not a coward is substantiated by specific events in the play. Throughout his criticism, Bradley focuses on one general theory and gives numerous examples to prove it. In contrast, Willson has four different theories, but has minimal specific references to scenes in the play. This makes his entire criticism seem cluttered and only slightly proved. Although Willson’s theories appear obvious and thereby true,

Garg 3 Bradley’s investigation delves deeper into Falstaff’s character. Willson simply “scratches the surface”, and looks at the visibly obvious. Therefore, one would be more attracted to Willson’s theories, but in reality, Bradley’s theory gives a more insightful and perceptive look into the personality of the complex character that is Falstaff.